"Loews (NYSE: L), the holding company of the New York-based Tisch family, is a way of buying a collection of good stocks at a discount, with much else thrown in free," says Adrian Day.

The editor of the top-notch The Global Analyst explains, "These value investors have a long record of buying quality assets cheaply when they are out of favor, nurturing them, and eventually monetizing them."

"Everyone loves a sale, right? Typically, the Tisch family buys major chunks of out-of-favor businesses, often publicly traded, and holds them for many years. They exemplify the important traits of successful value investors: discipline and patience.

"I calculate a New Asset Value for Loews-taking current (depressed) stock prices for its publicly traded holdings, the cash, and conservative valuations for the private assets-of almost $39 per share.

General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) missed by a penny. But a look behind its corporate veil reveals a company that is not getting the so-called benefits of diversification. Instead, the great performance of one of its businesses is being overwhelmed by all the other businesses which are shrinking. My concern is what happens if that one business also takes a dive.

GE net income fell 44% to $3.65 billion and its earnings per share (EPS) from continuing operations was 36 cents -- analysts had expected 37. Here's the bad news:

• GE's financial-services business, GE Capital, made a profit of $383 million -- an 88% drop while its revenues fell 18%. Its CNBC cable channel reported that it would cut 7,000 jobs and save $2 billion.
  
• GE's consumer and industrial business suffered an 86% earnings decline as revenue fell 17%
• GE's television and movie network. NBC Universal suffered a 6.3% earnings decline while revenue slid 2.7% as declines at local stations -- presumably suffering from weak advertising demand -- were partially offset by strong cable earnings

CNNMoney reports that General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) missed earnings expectations by a mile. Its net income fell 12% to $4.4 billion, or 44 cents per share, seven cents less than what Thomson Financial's polling of analysts had estimated.

In February I analyzed GE's breakup value and concluded that the stock was probably a bit overvalued. The big problem with today's earnings announcement was GE's financial services unit. Like Wall Street banks, GE suffered from "extraordinary disruption in the capital markets in March [which] affected our ability to complete asset sales and resulted in higher mark-to-market losses and impairments."

But that's not all. GE missed on revenues and lowered its guidance. Sales rose 8% to $42.2 billion, $1.5 billion below analysts' forecast of $43.7 billion. GE lowered its full year guidance to between $2.20 and $2.30 per share, reflecting flat to 5% growth. GE is down 11% in pre-market.

Since its current CEO, Jeff Immelt took over in September 2001, GE stock has fallen 20% from $41 to $33. Remind me again of why the "great" Jack Welch chose Immelt to succeed him.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns GE shares.

With the markets still in a choppy/consolidation mode (or perhaps worse), it's best to consider including a few defensive stocks in your portfolio, and with the aforementioned in mind Procter & Gamble is worth a review.

If General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) is 'the mutual fund in one company,' then The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) is the 'consumer products aisle' in one company. Pick a brand, any brand. PG has about 300, including names you know well: Crest toothpaste, Folgers coffee, Bounty paper towels, Tide detergent, Gillette shavers - - PG's core product line contains brands that are entrenched in U.S. culture... and entrenched in U.S. consumer buying patterns.

Procter & Gamble says its mission is "to provide superior quality and value to the world's consumers," and both revenue and consumer satisfaction surveys suggest it is 'on message,' to borrow a political campaign strategy phrase.

It goes without saying that diversification is one defense against the onset of a bear market. Further, occasionally the market offers a conglomerate that possesses many of the characteristics of a diversified mutual fund or portfolio, and with the above in mind, Loews is worth a review.

Loews (NYSE: LTR) is a holding company with operations that include property / casualty insurance, hotels, offshore oil/gas drilling, natural gas pipelines, and cigarettes. Don't confuse LTR with that other company with a similar-sounding name: LTR is a conglomerate.

Analysts really like LTR's Diamond Offshore deepwater/midwater oil rig operations, which, as one might sense, are experiencing strong demand and pricing power, given the global drive for more oil. Analysts are equally impressed by LTR's natural gas pipeline business.

Conglomerate Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) has operations in the industrial automation, control systems, lighting products, heating and ventilation systems, power distribution / transmission equipment, and transportation systems fields.

Readers of this space know that the investment philosophy favors large-cap companies with demonstrated business models and who have a competitive advantage in established markets, preferably with a favorable global trend as a support. And along this line Siemens AG is worth an evaluation.

That's quite a breadth of operations, and the company has a diagnostic/imaging unit and an energy-related products unit, as well, but analysts like the fact that Siemens has streamlined it businesses in recent years. Analysts see 10-14% revenue growth in F2008, after 8-10% growth in F2007, and a healthy overall revenue mix.

Further, 20% of Siemens operations are Asia / Middle East / Russia-focused, where margin improvement is expected. The Reuters F2008/F2009 EPS consensus estimates for SI are $8.59/%10.30.

The risks? Analysts are watching for a possible decrease in capital spending in Europe, and other signs of regional economic sluggishness.

The First Call mean rating for SI is: Buy. [4 firms.] Mean 2008 target: $169.00. [high: $199, low: $131.]

Stock Analysis: Siemens AG is a moderate-risk stock not suitable for low-risk investors. Investors with an investment horizon longer than 2 years should be rewarded from SI's shares. Sell / Stop Loss if you were to purchase shares in this company: $84.

Disclosure: Lazzaro has no positions in stocks. In addition to private real estate holdings, he owns corporate and municipal bonds, and cash certificates of deposit.

Given the market's continued choppy / consolidating pattern, it makes sense to add a defensive stock or two, and one worth an evaluation is conglomerate Olin Corp.

Olin Corp. (NYSE: OLN) is a diversified producer of brass metal products, chlor-alkali chemicals, and ammunition.

Analysts like Olin's chlor-alkali business (21% of 2006 revenue), including products like caustic soda and chlorine, among others. An impressive brass operation (67% of 2006 revenue), and an ammunition business (12% of revenue) rounds-out OLN's diverse industrial plate. Look for the ammunition business to continue to benefit from strong military orders, in the immediate years ahead. The Reuters F2007/F2008 EPS consensus estimates for OLN are $1.50/$1.46.

The drawbacks? The commodity chemicals segment is cyclical -- some products are used in pulp/paper processing and to keep swimming pool water clean, for example -- so analysts will look for signs of a slower-economy-induced dip in orders in Q1/Q2 2008.

The First Call mean rating for OLN is: Buy. [7 firms.] Mean 2008 target: $24.00. [high: $27, low: $20.]

Stock Analysis: Olin Corp. is a moderate-risk stock not suitable for low-risk investors. Investors with an investment horizon longer than two years should be rewarded from OLN's shares. Sell / Stop Loss if you were to purchase shares in this company: $13.

DISCLOSURE: Joseph Lazzaro has no positions in stocks. In addition to private real estate holdings, he owns corporate and municipal bonds, and cash certificates of deposit.

Amsterdam-based Royal Philips Electronics will buy Respironics for $5.2 billion or about $66 per share, Philips announced Friday in a statement.

Respironics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RESP) shares surged more than 20% on the news, gaining $12.23 to $65.34. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (ADR) (NYSE: PHG) shares declined 80 cents to $43.35 in Friday afternoon trading.

Philips said the acquisition significantly strengthens Philips Healthcare, will provide a strategic platform for further growth, and also leverages the acquisitions of Lifeline and Raytel.

Pennsylvania-based Respironics manufactures masks and ventilators for use in patients homes for the treatment of breathing disorders.

Marketwatch's John Dvorak has an interesting theory about Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT): It's turning into a holding company similar to the famous one controlled by Bill Gates' friend and bridge partner, Warren Buffett. He outlines this theory in two columns, which you can read here and here. Here's an excerpt outlining the central thesis:

Imagine Microsoft not as a big software company but as KKR or any of the private equity holding companies. Or Berkshire Hathaway.

If seen as such, I can think of numerous stand alone companies within the company already: an office productivity software company, a server software company, an operating systems software company, an email specialty company, an online service (MSN) company, a book publishing company, a mouse and keyboard manufacturing company, a game console company, a game software company, an online gaming company. You get the idea.

Dvorak may very well be right, but this isn't a change I think investors want to celebrate. While Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) has had tremendous success, the reality is that the vast majority of conglomerates don't perform well. Acquisitions tend not to create long-term value, and if that's the way Microsoft is going to have to fuel growth ... investors should move along.

Cheering for Microsoft's rebirth as a holding company is like celebrating the fact that your 9-year old skips school to play basketball. Maybe he's the next Lebron James, but it's not likely.

Microsoft has a steep hill to climb back to relevance, and trying to go the conglomerate-route will probably only make it steeper.

3M Co. (NYSE: MMM) and Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON) today reported better-than-expected third quarter results and raised their earnings guidance. But Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT) disappointed Wall Street and offered a gloomy outlook for the U.S. economy. That bad news pulled down 3M and Honeywell's shares, as well as pulling down the Dow Jones Industrial Average by triple digits.

"The third-quarter earnings that are coming out are the worst but we don't see a sharp bounce-back,'' Christina Bank & Trust's Scott Arminger told Bloomberg News. "Financial earnings will be pretty mediocre for a couple of quarters going forward.''

The maker of Post-It notes and countless other products reported net income of $960 million, or $1.32 per share, compared with $894 million, or $1.18 per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 5.5% to $6.2 billion. Excluding one-time earnings, profit was $1.29 compared with $1.17 a year earlier. Analysts expected profit of $1.28 and revenue of $6.29 billion, according to Thomson Financial. 3M raised its earnings forecast to $5.54 to $5.62 for this year, compared with previous guidance of $5.40 to $5.60. It expects full year sales growth excluding the divestiture of the branded pharmaceutical business of 7% to 8%.

Honeywell's profit rose 14% to $618 million, or 81 cents per share and revenue rose 10 percent to $8.74 billion, helped by strength in its commercial aviation, defense and space markets. The results beat Wall Street consensus expectations of 82 cents on revenue of $8.59 billion.

According to the Sunday New York Times, conglomerates are back. Companies like ITT Corp. (NYSE: ITT) and Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) are trading near multi-year highs. William Holstein writes:

To some extent, the new conglomerates have simply become lucky. They are riding a global infrastructure spending boom for airports and airlines, power systems, waste water and environmental projects, and hospitals and health care systems, not to mention record government spending on military projects and security surveillance. Their ability to assemble product offerings from different industries is a source of strength, they say.

While I'd be extremely skeptical if someone referred to the recent strength of conglomerates as some sort of new paradigm, it really may be different this time. The conglomerate boom of the 1960s and 1970s ended in disaster for many of the high-fliers, but changes have been made. Private equity firms have employed a conglomerate-like model to generate huge returns for their investors, and smarter management and more competent deal-making is leading to better-crafted hodgepodges of divergent businesses.

Honeywell International (NYSE: HON) CEO David Cote is also quoted in the Times piece: "When you look back at the history, the companies were put together without any real integration. They were really just holding companies. They didn't try to do anything to make the businesses better."

The old-time model of hyping the stock of a conglomerate and using it to acquire companies at a lower price/earnings multiple is no longer in vogue, mercifully.

For an interesting, although not entirely enjoyable, look at the history of the conglomerate business model, pick up a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Conglomerate Kings by Robert Sobel.

General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) trades at a 4% conglomerate discount. A conglomerate owns many different businesses -- which do not share resources. The rationale for conglomerates was that they allow investors to buy a diversified earnings stream -- when one business is up the other is down and vice versa. In theory this makes earnings smoother.

Finance theory suggests that conglomerates should trade at a discount to the stand alone value of those businesses. The reason for the conglomerate discount is that investors are able to construct a portfolio of stocks that will achieve the diversification themselves. Thus all the overhead needed to manage these diverse businesses under one umbrella adds cost without creating offsetting investment value.

One way to test this theory is to compare the weighted average price/earnings (P/E) ratios of the industries in which GE competes with GE's overall P/E. When I did this, I found that if each of GE's business units was a stand alone public company, its industry P/E weighted by its proportion of operating earnings to the total, averaged out to 19.9. This is substantially above GE's P/E of 19.1, suggesting that GE trades at a 4% conglomerate discount.

Next Tuesday I am scheduled to meet with General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) Chief Financial Officer Keith Sherin to discuss GE's performance and prospects. This meeting came at the company's initiation.

As a GE shareholder I have not been thrilled with the performance of the stock. Since September 7, 2001 when current CEO Jeff Immelt took over, the stock has risen 3% from $39.60, compared to a 40% increase in the S&P 500. Moreover, on the basis of its Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) ratio of 1.5 -- based on a P/E of 19.5 and earnings forecast to grow 13% to $2.50 in 2008 -- GE looks somewhat overvalued to me.

So here are some questions I plan to ask:

• Since the current GE CEO took over, GE stock is up 3%, compared to a 40% increase in the S&P 500. Why has GE stock underperformed this average?
• GE stock has risen 23% in the last year, however, it trades at a PEG of 1.5 which makes it a bit expensive. Why should investors buy GE stock now?
• Since the Healthcare, Industrial and NBC Universal segments all saw revenues fall in the first half with relatively weak profit performance, why doesn't GE sell these businesses and invest the proceeds to increase its market share in the more financially successful Infrastructure and Commercial Finance units?
• If GE chooses to stay in Healthcare how will it offset the negative impact of the federal government's decision to cut reimbursements to nonhospital imaging centers?
• Under Jack Welch, GE's philosophy was to only be in businesses in which it could be #1 or #2. Recently NBC was ranked the 4th most watched network. Will GE sell NBC? If not, why is GE keeping NBC? How does NBC's coordination with other GE divisions increase GE's overall revenues or lower its costs?
• How vulnerable is the GE Money unit to an increase in consumer loan defaults? Is GE Money likely to experience accelerated revenue and profit growth in 2008 or slower growth? Why?
• What impact would a 10% decline in the dollar have on GE's Earnings Per Share (EPS)?
• What other external factors -- such as an increase in interest rates or a rise in energy prices -- represent the biggest risks to GE's EPS? How do you quantify those risks?

Please let me know which ones you'd like to add to the list.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns General Electric stock.

United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX), the second-most famous Connecticut-based conglomerate behind General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE), today raised profit and revenue forecast for the year and reported decent results as well.

Net income was $1.15 billion, or $1.16 per share. Gains across its lines of business ranging from Otis elevators to Sikorsky helicopters boosted sales by 13% to $13.9 billion. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial had expected earnings of $1.15 on revenue of $13.34 billion.

The company raised revenue guidance for the year to $53 billion from $51 billion and upped its EPS estimate to $4.15 to $4.25 from $4.05 to $4.20. Investors, though, apparently were expecting better, sending shares down in pre-market trading. Analysts expected earnings of $4.19 on sales of $52.4 billion, according to Thomson Financial.

Though United Technologies trails GE in market cap, it beats its larger rival in share performance. This year, shares of the Hartford-based company have jumped about 23%, more than double GE's 9%. The stock also is cheap with a multiple of 20.3 compared with GE's 19.6.

Friday was a fascinating day for General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE); the shares were actually up $1 and trading volume was at 91 million shares, nearly triple the usual amount. The hoopla started when Citigroup research mentioned that GE should be broken up and spun off into separate companies. It's about time.

I have been writing about the possibility of GE splitting up for the past year for members of my website. It only makes sense. The problem with General Electric is that it has too many moving parts to properly predict consistent growth. GE is expected to generate revenues of $176 billion this year, with earnings per share of $2.22. For 2008, early consensus is for revenues of $196 billion and earnings per share of $2.48, barely a 10% increase over 2007.

Revenues are growing at slightly less than 10%. The 10% number is a magical number for Wall Street. If a company falls under that benchmark, serious questions about strategy and direction need to be asked -- and answered. Jeff Immelt, CEO, has been under the gun recently as the shares of GE have plodded along for the past six years in a narrow trading range. The bottom line is that there has been minimal growth for shareholders, but a decent dividend -- currently at $1.12, for a 3.1% yield.

GE has a market capitalization of $378 billion and is one of the most successful companies in the world. No question, investors who have owned the shares these past 20 years have been superbly and amply rewarded. The Jack Welch era saw skyrocketing growth of revenues and earnings, not to mention many new management principles crystallized in his books.

That was then -- this is now.